With the release of more than 250,000 diplomatic documents earlier this week, WikiLeaks shifted its attention from the U.S. military to the country's diplomats, spilling classified messages that the government obviously did not care to share with the public. The U.S. stance is that WikiLeaks is taking advantage of vulnerabilities caused by increased intra-governmental agency data sharing mandated in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and that this breach will cause significant damage to national security.

Others see WikiLeaks's mission as an unfocused assault on government secrecy, which may be overused but still serves a purpose. Rather than concentrating on whistleblowing, assessing historical truth or promoting peace, WikiLeaks instead publishes "a vast potpourri of records—dazzling, revelatory, true, questionable, embarrassing, or routine—whose only common feature is that they are classified or otherwise restricted," blogged Steven Aftergood, a senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, on Monday.

Aftergood's Secrecy News blog is technically in the same business as WikiLeaks—publishing official documents of public policy value that are somehow restricted or otherwise hard to find. Aftergood makes the distinction, however, that his blog publishes information not because it is restricted but rather because it has value to the public. The scope of government secrecy in the U.S., not to mention other countries, has exceeded rational boundaries, he acknowledges. Still, he adds, disabling secrecy in the name of transparency would be a sensible goal only "if it were true that all secrecy is wrong."

WikiLeaks has certainly succeeded in rousing the U.S. government. On August 12, 2010, Defense Secretary Robert Gates commissioned two reviews to determine what policy, procedural and technological shortfalls contributed to unauthorized disclosure to the WikiLeaks Web site. The results led to a number of recommendations for tightening access to documents, including "disabling all write capability to removable media on DoD classified computers, as a temporary technical solution to mitigate the future risks of personnel moving classified data to unclassified systems," according to a Defense Department memo. The Defense Department claims that 60 percent of its Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) is now equipped with a host-based security system (HBSS) that can monitor unusual data access or usage. The department also claims to be accelerating HBSS deployment to the rest of its SIPRNet systems.

Scientific American asked Aftergood for his thoughts on how so much sensitive diplomatic information could be leaked and what the U.S. government might do to prevent future leaks.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

How was someone able to get so many documents? Does this have anything to do with documents on the Department of Defense and the Department of State being from a single SIPRNet server?
This is a subject of continuing investigation.  But it appears that all of the documents in question were available via SIPRNet and could be downloaded more or less at will. The Defense Department has made available its technical and policy response up to this point.

How does this latest episode differ from past leaks in pre-Web days, such as the Pentagon Papers back in 1971?
Certainly the technology makes it infinitely easier to capture the documents, to transfer them and to publish them for a worldwide audience.

How much does this latest leak hurt national security?
It's unclear and hard to quantify. But it seems likely that foreign interlocutors will now think twice about communicating information to U.S. diplomats, and U.S. diplomats now think twice about recording such information in written form. That is not good for diplomacy.

Does the government have a legitimate need for secrets? Is there such a thing as too much transparency in the public sector?
Certainly there is such a thing as legitimate secrecy. It extends to the protection of advanced military technologies, military operations, intelligence sources and methods—and diplomacy.

Reports say that the diplomats used "cables." Does this term refer to any electronic communication from overseas, or does it refer to an outdated mode of communication via telegram?
It is an anachronistic term that is nevertheless still used to refer to a diplomatic communication.

On November 28, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a memo (pdf) calling for each agency that handles classified information to establish a security assessment team to ensure that users do not have broader access than necessary and to limit the use of removable media. What other changes do you foresee? What would you recommend?
A review of security procedures in light of recent events is already underway and may lead to new restrictions on access or distribution of classified records. My hope is that a critical review of the classification system in order to reduce or eliminate unnecessary secrecy will be part of the government's response.

12 Comments

1. 1. seeqer 06:16 PM 11/30/10

   We stick our noses where they don't belong and classify EVERYTHING. Until we stop acting stupidly I'll SUPPORT Wikileaks.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Spiff 03:18 PM 12/1/10

   In olden days the security branches were separate and the chance of getting info that effected everything and everyone was very small, then came Homeland Security! Now all a hacker, spy, or nut has to do is enter any security site and have access to ALL info! Real smart, about as smart as allowing children to vote...whoops! We already do that...
   Spiff

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Zarathustra 03:38 PM 12/1/10

   The question is not whether the United States can prevent another Wikileak. The question should be: can the United States conduct their foreign Policy without lying so g-damn much?????

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. lahatton 04:31 PM 12/1/10

   The question is not whether we need security, but how we use it and more importantly what we do with things we want secured. Anyone that has ever coordinated a suprprise party knows and understands security. For years we believed that the sinking of the Battleship Maine in Havana harbor, by the spanish (?), started the Spanish-American War. Now we are learning, based upon recreations, that the explosion was caused by a munitions handling error on the ship. True or False?
   
   I haven't seen or heard anyting shocking from Wikileaks, at least nothoing yet. Nor am I surprised at what some people think about others, we all do it, so why be so surprised and outraged. Your point of view will always color your opinions and views of others. So get over it. The idea is to get along, not to cohabitate.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. shnull 11:39 PM 12/1/10

   I haven't seen wikileaks publish any documents on 'how to nuke the world in 10 easy steps for fundummentalists' so far, and even if they did, imo they would have the right to do so. All they did so far is point out the fails of the animal farm

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Daniel35 08:45 PM 12/3/10

   I feel true democracy requires valid information. How can we have it when we keep secrets from the people? In fact, how can we have a true national community?
   
   As I understand it, names of our spies and such are at a different level of security and not available to Wikileaks.
   
   We could reduce our need for secrecy if we became more cooperative and stopped trying to be a world empire.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. williweb 01:08 PM 12/4/10

   I never get victimized because I don't have anything anybody wants. If that changes I will make sure that WikiLeaks doesn't find out because they don't care who they hurt, embarrass, or put in jeopardy.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. bucketofsquid 03:45 PM 12/7/10

   If any of this information is embarassing, why is it in writing in the first place? One would think that diplomats would understand being diplomatic. When the military data was leaked there was no visible harm to national security. I doubt that there will be any harm from this leak either. It helps keep the flunkies on their toes. Maybe they will even get a hint of a clue about security.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. OXYMAN in reply to seeqer 04:53 PM 12/7/10

   Agreed. As far as we know these guys could have been some really bad dudes. If they are armed I say smoke em.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. TAWilliams01 10:47 PM 12/7/10

    ... to prevent further classified leakage, I recommend the memory chips in copier's be removed or "erased" before donating-selling-recycling ... leakage come's from segregated agency area's ~ a central storage area would be accessible to "glean" the chip's or the "old" copier's was inadvertently / mindlessly released to wherever /whomever with all data intact ... anyone else beside's Pvt. Manning could be treasonous ... he is simply a "mindless" scapegoat with a guilt factor of wrongdoing. The mindless culpit in this entire scenario is the equipment Purchasing / Disbursing Dept. for the government agencie's.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. Quinn the Eskimo 01:55 AM 12/9/10

    Can leaks be prevented? Well, NO.
    
    As long as the people with access can't be trusted--the system will have none.
    
    What the he11 was a PFC doing with access? Quizzel me that, Batman.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. Steve Skeete 10:14 PM 12/19/10

    So you like wikileaks? That's cool! But picture this. You keep a private diary in which you write your thoughts about everything and everyone, including your boss, your wife, your neighbour etc. Then one morning you awake to find that the contents of your "private" thoughts are all over You Tube, and that your boss, wife and neighbour don't find what was said about them amusing at all.
    
    Still like wikileaks? Don't you think there is such a thing as "privacy"? Or should someone who gets a hold of your personal diary publish it for all the world to see just because they can?
    
    And while you are at it explain this. What's the difference between what Assange does and blackmail?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this